Paywall removed: https://archive.is/Ngr8G

23 points

That’s because the President can’t ban it if they wanted to. From this very article:

While there are several ways Harris, if elected president, could halt fracking on federal lands using executive power, she wouldn’t be able to unilaterally ban it on private land. Under a 2005 law, the Environmental Protection Agency has almost no regulatory power over fracking. Changing that would require an act of Congress.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

There’s little reason to change your stance then, other than to virtue-signal to the right

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I prefer to think of it as vice-signalling

permalink
report
parent
reply
72 points

I’m all for banning it. But let’s take an honest look at the election predictions and notice PA will almost certainly be the deciding state in November. Eastern PA is solid blue, so the election effectively comes down to Western PA, where fracking is a single issue vote.

Perfection is the enemy of progress. We have a two party system and that’s not going away in 2 months. She can say she’ll ban it and Trump wins PA, or she can reverse course, opt for greater regulation, and have a chance to be the most climate forward president in US history.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Also, while PA is undoubtedly a vital battleground, I want to mention that ElectoralVote currently has the tipping point state for both presidential campaigns as North Carolina: https://electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Tipping_point/Aug28.html

In other words, if Harris carries PA there’s a decent chance she will also take NC by a slightly larger margin, and will already have secured the presidency without PA’s electoral votes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

How local do we have to get? Can the opinions of swing voters in like one county in PA hold the rest of the world hostage?

Polls indicate the majority of Pennsylvanians oppose fracking: https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/poll-majority-of-pa-residents-want-fracking-to-end/

“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pennsylvania had about 4,900 oil and gas extraction jobs in December of 2019. (For a frame of reference, there are more than 148,000 employed registered nurses in Pennsylvania. In January, there were 6.2 million jobs in Pennsylvania.)” https://www.pghcitypaper.com/news/pittsburgh-area-republican-candidate-sean-parnell-inflated-fracking-job-figures-by-a-lot-17001969

It’s a very dedicated interest group with a lot of money behind it, but fossil fuels simply don’t employ that many people, even in PA. It seems like an inadequate excuse for taking positions friendly to the fossil fuel corporations that are destroying our biosphere, both on the local scale and the global scale. Don’t blame Pennsylvania for Harris reversing her position on fracking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

We have a factory up the road that is the lifeblood of the town it is in (taxes and community support, but also just families supported). I could quote the number of people that work there (around 400 I think), but that town of 10k people would would vanish without it. The population would turn on someone promising to shut down the factory that only employs 400.

Multiply that scenario by…every rural town…and you get conciquencual numbers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Sssshhh

We’re doin like 5 different irrational reasons every single day why PLEASE DON’T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT FELLOW LEFT WING VOTERS

It doesn’t need to make any logical sense, it just needs to be a variety of stuff and literally never fuckin stop

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

OP tends to post naive agitprop takes on, like, literally anything Harris says or does, ignoring the realpolitik implications (which include, you know, losing to Trump because big corp and AIPAC go spooked by some campaign statement).

Just check the post history. They also tend to spam reposts in a bunch of communities, which I find odd, because karma farming is very much not a thing in the fediverse.

Edit: lol I see you, r2o

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I read this stuff but I’m never inclined to vote for that idiot because of it, and if I share or talk about things like this, it’s due to cautious optimism and not trusting politicians. It’s good to keep things in check and not get swept up in the same old party Obama sold us. If this kind of thing is enough to swing someone to vote for POS Trump, they were probably going that way regardless.

It should also be noted that the wealthy benefit from fascism and right-wing bullshit, so of course Fortune would post an article like this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Haven’t you read his own self report of his motivation? He cares so much about left wing causes that he’s decided to accomplish them by making a part time job out of attacking the most left wing person (whoever that might be) in this election for a variety of made up reasons.

It’s a hugely effective strategy. MLK did the exact same thing; he just made up hostile nonsense about the most civil-rights-friendly candidate at any given time, and presto! It pushed them to the left. That’s how we got the voting rights act and all this other good stuff.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Threat of Trump is unique. This isn’t the usual “vote for us or else.” I want progressive gains, but she’s got my vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Pretty much exactly, yeah.

OP occasionally posts reasonable articles, but I admit I feel compelled to call out bullshit like this on their more agitprop-oriented posts.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 3.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.1K

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators